Liberal SCOTUS Justice Caught in Scandal That Blows up Recent Left-Wing Attacks

By Bonchie May 03, 2023

There’s one certainty in politics. If a Democrat is accusing a Republican of doing something, it is the Democrat who is inevitably actually doing it. That dynamic played out again Wednesday after a major revelation about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor called into question all the recent left-wing attacks on Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. For the last few weeks, a coordinated assault on the court’s conservatives has taken place, with numerous press outlets releasing reports supposedly detailing corruption. 

In reality, essentially everything charged amounted to nothing legally or ethically. In the case of Thomas, he was not required to report the free travel he received from long-time friend Harlan Crow. A secondary charge that Thomas misreported income also turned out to be nothing more than a simple technical mistake involving two entities with nearly identical names.

As for Neil Gorsuch, he was accused of selling land to the executive of a law firm that had business before the Supreme Court. Once again reality got in the way of the far-left hysteria, though, after it was revealed that Gorsuch sold the property just nine days after being confirmed and that the person he sold it to had no business at all before the court at the time.

You get the idea. These attacks have been absolutely ridiculous, but that didn’t stop Senate Democrats from calling a hearing to furiously wag their fingers. Well, they are going to have to call another hearing because it’s been revealed that Sotomayor took $3.6 million from a book company that did have business before the court at the time (The Daily Wire). Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to recuse herself from multiple copyright infringement cases involving book publisher Penguin Random House despite having been paid millions by the firm for her books, making it by far her largest source of income, records show.........To Read More........

A Republic if You Can Keep It

Ethan Yang – December 25, 2020 Reading Time: 7 minutes

America in 2020 does not look like the America we were taught about in school. Of course the values we are taught are aspirational in nature and our country is an ongoing project of moving closer to those ideals. America has yet to live up to its founding principles but moving closer brings us closer to a more perfect union. Moving away from those ideas will doom societies to despotism and despair. That is what makes Justice Neil Gorsuch’s latest book, A Republic if You Can Keep It, so important. It is a book filled with tremendous legal knowledge, moving speeches, a stalwart defense of Originalism, and eternal wisdom regarding good government. Although it was published in 2019 to educate the general public, it could have just as easily been published in 2020 as a guide for a country that has lost its way. 

America is a republic if you can keep it

Americans and now the rest of the free world live under a very special form of government. One that was built to preserve a system of self-governance and most importantly, individual liberty. It was not built to cater to the wishes of the mob such as a pure democracy and it was not built to cater to the elite such as an oligarchy or a monarchy. Justice Gorsuch writes,

“This republic belongs to us all–and it is up to all of us to keep it. I think that’s what Benjamin Franklin was getting at when he spoke publicly after he emerged from the Constitutional Convention. A passerby asked what kind of government the delegates intended to propose, and Franklin reportedly replied: “A republic, if you can keep it”. 

As the saying goes: democracy is a verb. The success of our system is dependent on the participation and enthusiasm of the public. However, preserving a republic goes much further than that. In particular, a republic like ours requires an even greater emphasis on protecting individual liberty and upholding the institutions that do so, not just voting. Democracy in and of itself is nothing to be proud of nor will it lead to a flourishing society. A constitutional republic like the United States has laws that even the will of the majority must adhere to. The result is a rule of law that promotes freedom and prosperity. Things like the Bill of Rights, the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and federalism. Such institutions of liberty are not necessarily upheld by democratic participation but through a jealous and partisan defense of freedom. 

Protecting our freedom is the ultimate reason why the American government exists. That is apparent in our founding documents that Gorsuch explains when he writes,

“Take the idea found in the very first sentence of the Constitution. The Constitution’s preamble says that “We the People” ordain and establish this Constitution” in order to secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” It is no small thing that the founders claimed our new government was formed by “We the People.” They didn’t say our new government was formed by the Continental Army or the Congress or the States or some bureaucratic drafting committee. Institutions like those, the preamble made clear, exist to serve the people–not the other way around.”

It goes without saying that service to the people means first and foremost protecting our liberty............To Read More.....

 

Stare Decisis is Like a Street Sign: "Drive Only On the Left!"

By Rich Kozlovich 7/15/2018, updated 10:03 AM

I just read Bastasch’s article, Brett Kavanaugh put a serious damper on EPA power grabs, which gave me more confidence in this man, at least until he ended the article saying this about overturning the Endangerment Finding. He says:

"However, Adler (a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law) said it’s unlikely the court overturn Massachusetts v. EPA because of its strong tradition of “stare decisis” — latin for “to stand by things decided.” “It’s one thing to overturn a bad constitutional decision because Congress can’t fix that,” Adler said, though he added a Kennedy-less court could narrow the application of Massachusetts v. EPA. “It’s not going to be overturned,” he said."

For a law professor to say such a thing on such an issue is clearly demonstrating his bias in my opinion, especially since the adoration to "stare decisis" is a one way street for leftists.

I’m not sure how Kavanaugh would vote on a new Endangerment Finding case, but we need to get rid of this idea of “stare decisis” as the deciding factor.

These leftist justices have overturned “stare decisis” over and over again, and have been lauded by the very leftists who claim to adore the concept. Let's try and get this right - "stare decisis" - is not written in stone and the only reason to openly support it as something that’s “sacred” is nothing more than a public relations scam by anyone involved in politics or law. The left only 'adores' the concept if someone supports any of the leftist decisions that overturned "stare decisis" decisions of the past. Any effort to overturn leftist decisions that have no Constitutional basis other than what's called the "penumbra of the Constitution" is sacrilege to the law and the Constitution according to the left.

"In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions......."

An open ended concept that allows for abuse!

The word penumbra originally was a scientific term "created to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses." And I think the word shadows is more than appropriate when its used in relationship with the Constitution.   The "penumbra" of the Constitution "implies" rights not actually written in the Constitution, and in fact the concept allows for the ability to define, redefine and even ignore the actual and simple language of the Constitution, all of which has been done by the federal judiciary at every level. All in an effort to make the Constitution a "Living Document".

The problem with that is all the "living" changes are determined by the wrong branch of government. The Constitution never gave the federal judiciary to right to "legislate" via some indefinable term that's been adopted by those whose one desire is to destroy the Constitution. The unelected Judiciary have overstepped their Constitutional bounds into the territory the Constitution assigns to the Legislature.

It's always amazing how devoted progressives, socialists, leftists and liberals are to the Constitution, when it's convenient. But in reality, this is the document they've called a dusty old document and many early Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson considered an "impediment to human progress".  Nothing has changed!  Any concerns they express about devotion to "stare decisis" is strictly politics.

Now, that brings me back to green issues, Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court. Here’s one thing I don’t think many know and I think could be a big factor in deciding any green issue that comes before SCOTUS.

Who was Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mother?

Ann Burford Gorsuch, a one time head of the EPA during the Reagan administration who was eviscerated by the left and the green movement in and out of government, and those she called "pack journalists." I have no doubt about his view of the leftist swamp and their green misanthropic allies.

Will that have an impact on Kavanaugh?    I don't know, except I have no doubt Gorsuch has a much clearer understanding of all these green issues and the people involved than any of the rest.  And I'm confident he has the ability to explain them properly.

As for Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor? They're hopeless. They couldn't be convinced day was light or night was dark if it wasn't supportive of some kind of leftist clabber or other.  Not a one of them pass the test of unbiased open mindedness the left demands of Trump's appointments or a rational understanding of what the Constitution really says, often times creating policies that have shattered generations of Americans. 

However, they support those who believe the following:

• 58% of Democrats believe in UFOs, but only 32% are proud to be American. Only 37% of Republicans believe in flying saucers, but a full 80% are proud of their country.
• Almost twice as many Democrats are willing to believe in being abducted by space aliens than in their country. Hillary Clinton had promised that if elected, she would find out the truth about the little green men and suggested that the planet had already been visited by aliens. "Maybe we could have, like, a task force to go to Area 51," she suggested.
• The chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, John Podesta, an obsessive UFO buff, appeared on an episode of Ancient Aliens which claimed that Hillary Clinton was defeated to suppress the truth about space aliens.
• Democrats are the party least likely to know that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. Only between 48% to 27% of the enlightened supporters of the Party of Science actually knew this.
• 45% of liberals believe in astrology.
• Three-quarters of Democrats believe that thoughts can influence the physical world.
• Over half believe in ghosts.
• Almost a third of Democrats, twice as many as Republicans, believe in “spiritual energy”. 35% of liberals compared to 18% of conservatives are believers.
• A fifth of Democrats fear the “evil eye”.
• If you can name a superstition, knocking on wood, walking under ladders or stepping on a crack, polls show that Democrats are more likely to believe in it.
• Democrats are 60% more likely to fear black cats than Republicans (so much for the anti-racist party)
• 33% more likely to fear the number 13.
• The rational and enlightened elite who want to make all our decisions are also 54% more likely to think that opening an umbrella indoors is bad luck.
• A fifth of Democrats believe it’s unlucky to walk under a ladder.
• Nearly a fifth believe in fortune telling.

But then.......to be on the left is a one way street, and being open minded to the left means being so open your brains fall out.

Editor's Note:  I've still not been able to fix the problem I'm having with Blogger, including having the links work, so  copy and past this link to the article and for some reason it will open everything.  http://paradigmsanddemographics.blogspot.com/2018/07/stare-decisis-is-like-street-sign-drive.html

Gorsuch Nomination: The Sixty Vote Rule is Dead!

By Rich Kozlovich

Shumer's right.  Just how selfish are these Republicans?  Why can't Republicans understand it's only Democrats who are allowed to change the 60 vote rule when it suits them.

See....now we have clarity! 

We don't have logic, or justice, or fairness - but we have clarity!  And what's the clarity we have? 

The 60 vote rule is dead, and good riddence.  It's not a Constitutional requirement, it's a Senate rule, and that's why Reid could do away with it when it pleased him to do so, all the while decrying anyone else do so. 

Mitch McConnell needs to understand right now - the 60 vote rule is dead! Reid and Shumer killed it.

Schumer Says He'll Oppose Gorsuch Nomination, Sets Up Filibuster Showdown With GOP
On the final day of the confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch, the Senate Democratic leader announced his opposition to the Supreme Court nominee.  In a speech on the Senate floor, Chuck Schumer said Gorsuch "will have to earn 60 votes for confirmation," setting up a showdown with Republican leaders who may attempt to change Senate rules.  If Gorsuch "cannot earn 60 votes, a bar met by each of President Obama's nominees and George Bush's last two nominees, the answer isn't to change the rules," Schumer said. "It's to change the nominee."......

Schumer’s Machiavellian filibuster gambit
In chess, a gambit is an opening maneuver intended to draw one's opponent into a position where he can be taken advantage of.  Sometimes a gambit involves the sacrifice of a piece, often a pawn, to entice the opponent.   On Thursday, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced that his caucus would filibuster the confirmation of President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch.  Under current Senate rules, Republicans would be unable to stop the filibuster unless eight Democrats cross party lines and provide 60 votes for cloture.  Schumer appears confident that that will not happen........

My Take - This guy is as cluelss as the others.  There's no appeasing the left, not now, and certainly not when he says "it counts" replacing someone like Ginsburg.  When that happens the knives will really come out.   If they fold now they're done! 

I'm constantly amazed as the lack of understanding of these writers.  Power has to be taken and it has to be done with guts.  The 60 vote rule is done, it has to be done or the Republican party as it's configured right now is done, and maybe that's not a bad thing, but in the meanwhile the damage they will leave behind won't be able to be fixed for decades.  We don't have decades!  We're broke and within four years it's going to hit the fan internationally.  How well we withstand the next worldwide economic downturn will depend on the guts to take power into their hands right now and use it.  It's no wonder they call the Republicans the Dumb Party and the Democrats the Party of Treason.  Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. 

Leftmedia Attempts Hit Piece on Gorsuch
The New York Times decided to help out its Democrat buddies by running a story clearly designed to be used as a hit piece against Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. The Times article, entitled "Neil Gorsuch Has Web of Ties to Secretive Billionaire," attempted to paint Gorsuch as a puppet of the wealthy conservative business man Philip Anschutz, due to the fact that Gorsuch had previously worked for the man years ago when he was a lawyer. The story submits no compelling evidence supporting its insinuation of corruption and offers little anecdotal evidence besides. It'd be laughable if it weren't so outrageous. The best they could come up with is that Gorsuch and some executives at Anschutz's companies decided to go in together on buying a vacation house. Shocking, no? ..........

(Editor's Note:  If anyone has any doubt the 60 vote rule needs eliminated, this piece of twisted leftist logic below should be enough to abandon all doubt along with the 60 vote rule.  RK)

Neil Gorsuch Is Supremely Qualified, and Must Not Be Confirmed
This is a very hard column to write. I’m about to abandon everything I have believed for much of my life about the proper principles for federal governance. Unfortunately, too many of our political leaders did that long ago, which makes this conclusion inevitable: Federal Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, must not be confirmed. Democrats must fight it to the bitter end. The preservation of the final, tattered remains of American constitutional government demands it........... But no more. Gorsuch, unfortunately, must be sacrificed on the altar of obscene partisanship erected by the Republicans in recent years. Temper tantrums designed to undermine the Constitution for naked political purposes cannot be rewarded. Our government cannot survive the short-term games-playing that has replaced fidelity to the intent of the Founding Fathers’ work in forming this once-great nation...............

Observations From the Back Row: The Gorsuch Hearings

By Rich Kozlovich

Yesterday I caught as much of the Gorsuch hearing I could stand. Watching Senator Patrick Leahy gives me hives...so I moved on.

At any rate he continually demanded do know if Gorsuch thought religion should be a determining factor in immigration.

Gorsuch kept saying that was already covered by the first amendment. Well, they were both being cute. The first amendment covers the rights of American citizens to practice the religion of their choice.

Being allowed to immigrate is not a right - it's a privilege - and that decision belongs to the President of the United States. He can ban anyone for any reason - that's the law no matter what any judge says - and Jimmy Carter did it.

There are times I wish I had the opportunity to answer the questions for these people. Here would have been my answer:

Well Senator, let's say there was a resurgence of Baal worship in the Middle East, which required the sacrifice of babies.  Would the left think they should be allowed here to practice their religion?  Oh....wait.....we already have them here.   We call them progressives, or liberals , and they call their demented practises rights.  

Then there were the Thuggees – the Cult Assassins of India, who practiced ritual murder for centuries in India.  A practice that didn't stop until the British found out about them in the 1800's, then executed, expelled or imprisoned all of them.  If such a group re-surged and wanted to come to America would that be acceptable?
 
So do I believe religion should be a determining factor in immigration? 

Well, if a religious movement's primary laws require violence against other religions or groups with whom they disagree, including those who are members of a different sect of the same religion because they believe they're heretics deserving of death - then they need to be kept out and any already here need to be sent back.  And that religion is called Islam.

Let's try and get this once and for all.  Islam isn't a religion.  It's a criminal political organization masquerading as a religion, and they need to be declared an international criminal movement and banned from immigrating to the U.S.  As for the European policy on Muslim immigration - they've clearly demonstrated their policy is the perfect example for national suicide - so let's save American lives and culture and let them strangle to death on their own idiocy.   

We have no obligation to let anyone into this country, but when we do it should be for the benefit of the United States - period!

 Now that would be my answer, and that would be the right answer!